Woman goes into Office Depot to print fliers, you won't believe what happens next!

Page 1 of 2
#1
She was told no

http://www.miseeharris.com/office-depot-under-fire-for-refusing-to-print-anti-abortion-prayer-trending-news/

Tried to find an article that was relatively unbiased

A spokesperson for Office Depot said that their company policy does not allow “the copying of any type of material that advocates any form of racial or religious discrimination or the persecution of certain groups of people. It also prohibits copying any type of copyrighted material.”

The statement went on saying, “the flier contained material that advocates the persecution of people who support abortion rights”.

Goldstein argues that “the intention of the prayer is to ask for conversion… of the staff, employees, everybody who is part of this at Planned Parenthood. It means they will recognize life has dignity and that it is valuable and not a commodity to be bought and sold.”

According to the statement by Office Depot, Goldstein was told that she could use the self-serve copy machines, which she refused because she felt “discriminated against”.


What does the Pit think?
#2
Office Depot is a business and can decline to offer its services. I suppose there is an argument to be made for religious discrimination (albeit a weak and strained one), but I'm less bothered by any minor discrimination than the fact that the fliers are a call for persecuting a specific group of people. It was ostensibly to be distributed among members of a RCC congregation (probably like-minded folks) rather than Planned Parenthood folks itself, but still. Seems pretty straightforward to me, though I don't deny that it can be complicated if you bring extra sludge to it (e.g., unhealthy and unproductive perspectives on reproductive rights).

I'm more bothered that people still think the Planned Parenthood vids weren't blatantly edited. NPR recently reported an investigation out of Quantico (excuse the lack of a link--lazy today) about the great extent to which the videos were edited. I really see no common interest between the FBI and Planned Parenthood to strike up a conspiracy, either.

More than anything, I'm pretty apathetic about it. Some wanker with a victim complex has their knickers in a twist about something. Hopefully it gets incorporated into the massive news media circlejerk/dialectic/thing on abortion currently going on. You know, just for the giggles.
#4
Yeah, sounds good to me too. I'm pro-life, but if I'm a major corporation like Home Depot, Wal-Mart, etc., I'd just pass and not be interested in taking sides.
#6
As long as it's not gov't owned, that's a good policy. You wanna be a dick, buy your own copyprinter. No one should help you with your crazy ass pro-life shit.
#7
So it's not discriminatory for someone to refuse to issue marriage licenses because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong, but it's discriminatory for someone to refuse to print a sociopolitical message for someone because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong?
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#8
Quote by necrosis1193
So it's not discriminatory for someone to refuse to issue marriage licenses because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong, but it's discriminatory for someone to refuse to print a sociopolitical message for someone because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong?

One was a privately owned business, the other was a civil servants. Civil servants are supposed to hang their opinion sup next to their jackets when they arrive at work.
#9
Quote by necrosis1193 at #33593850
So it's not discriminatory for someone to refuse to issue marriage licenses because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong, but it's discriminatory for someone to refuse to print a sociopolitical message for someone because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong?


there's a massive difference between the two. One was a woman who refused to marry couples, and was a civil servant, IE employed by the government to do a job, then refused to do that job because they hate gays

The other is a private buisness saying "no we don't want to help you spread your nonsense". They even said that she's free to use the self-copiers

One was refusing someone a legal right granted by the government based on bullshit discrimination. The other was saying no to business

would we be having the same conversation if the woman was refused from copying pro-KKK leaflets?


I actually misread you post at first, I didn't see the "not" at first, and thought you were being all like "we should be allowed to refuse gays ect ect" lol
Eat your pheasant
Drink your wine
Your days are numbered, bourgeois swine!
#10
I don't see how it's "persecution" if she's just praying for them.

But they're a private company so they can do what they want.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#11
Quote by ErikLensherr
I don't see how it's "persecution" if she's just praying for them.

But they're a private company so they can do what they want.

She's basically asking God to mind-rape Planned Parenthood employees.
#15
"According to the statement by Office Depot, Goldstein was told that she could use the self-serve copy machines, which she refused because she felt “discriminated against.”


This really says it all. Stupid asshole was just looking for attention.
#16
i got thrown out of an irish bar last week because i am not irish


this is the moment where people asking for tolerance are hesitant to tolerate others

melodrama and way to simple to actually be true about everything, but this is such a complication, and to be honest I think it's absurd.

I wish people stopped seeing other people as an enemy to their identity, when in reality it isn't.

I think she should go home, edit it so it reads

"poem by: catholic guy"

idk if you can ban that, especially if you say your intent is to compare and study social changes that have happened with the world, parallel to the catholic church, and then determine their stance on saying we don't believe in abortion, and this is why, but it's ok guys you can do what you want srsly
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#18
also dumb how it's all "company policy prohibits these etcs" and then the employees tell her she can use the self copy machines.

while ago as well, flight attendant got fired or suspended or whatever for refusing to serve alcohol because of her religion. she would ask other flight attendants to do that for her, so everyone gets what they want and she doesn't feel like she is being forced to go against her religion.

With the political kentucky thing with refusal to grant same-sex marriage licenses, they came with a roundabout way that satisfies both. she grants it, whilst not writing her name (which somehow makes it not same-sex marriage but idk). Another alternative is that she grants it, but has a co-worker do the paperwork.


there's an awkward clash between company policy, employee belief, religious obligation, acceptance of social trends that you do not follow, etc. people need to figure it out.
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#19
hey guys btw, as a mormon, i am expected to follow the commandment given in the old testament from god to moses, where i cannot use the name of god in vain

gotta kick someone out of the corner market cause they kept saying it and I didn't feel comfortable giving them the same service as I would for others. so I refused to serve them because they used a phrase I dont use
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#20
by using hyperbole and using examples that inherently support my view, i topple the anti-anti-[belief] people
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#22
Quote by necrosis1193
So it's not discriminatory for someone to refuse to issue marriage licenses because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong, but it's discriminatory for someone to refuse to print a sociopolitical message for someone because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong?

You are kidding, eh?
#23
Quote by Baby Joel at #33594168
by using hyperbole and using examples that inherently support my view, i topple the anti-anti-[belief] people

We're done here.
#24
Quote by slapsymcdougal at #33593881
One was a privately owned business, the other was a civil servants. Civil servants are supposed to hang their opinion sup next to their jackets when they arrive at work.


Quote by Thrashtastic15 at #33594192
You are kidding, eh?


You guys do realize that I was using the contrast of those two examples to basically say that it's ridiculous that the same group of people who think that Goldstein is being discriminated against don't think that Davis was discriminating against anyone, right?
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#25
Quote by necrosis1193
So it's not discriminatory for someone to refuse to issue marriage licenses because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong, but it's discriminatory for someone to refuse to print a sociopolitical message for someone because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong?


Compound-complex sentences with double negations that lead into rhetorical questions are really hard to deal with cognitively (not suggesting anyone here's a dummy or anything). Especially on an internet forum where people are usually primed to argue at the drop of a hat.

Just kind of weird that it tripped up multiple people.
#27
Quote by necrosis1193 at #33593850
So it's not discriminatory for someone to refuse to issue marriage licenses because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong, but it's discriminatory for someone to refuse to print a sociopolitical message for someone because it contradicts with their beliefs of what's right and wrong?

It's ok to discriminate against everyone other than christians. Jesus said so.
#28
>goldstein
>roman catholic

story is obviously fake
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#29
Quote by theogonia777 at #33594616
>goldstein
>roman catholic

story is obviously fake

I was wondering the same thing but some of them open their hearts to Jesus yanno.

crazysam hmu
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#30
maybe she just married a jewish guy

my sister married a jewish guy but told him that he couldn't be jewish anymore
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#32
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
We're done here.

and that's why I think it's bollocks. is that is such a stupid unfounded legitimate reason. company policy is that they do not give service to discriminatory documents. pro-non-abortion workers say they're not going to do it cause immoral or whatever and then she gets told that she can use the self-serve copier.

employee 'i won't particiapte in something that discriminates' action (which is legit and totally respectable when its legit) supercedes compnay policy. the workers don't care if the person does it. office depot doesn't care as long as it is not creditted at all with endorsement of the nazi stuff or whatever.

cpmpany policy says no, guy says i won't but do it there
when is employee exemption from participating in something that is against their moral core, greater than company?

I've seen and know a bunch of people who have done table waiting to get cash during high school. they're like sixteen and seventeen. so they legally cannot mention the alcoholic products at all. a legal adult has to do that. so if that's the policy, even though the girl could be totally fine with serving to people, why is it handpicked, and seemingly in support of the current pc is awful and if i'm offended they shouldn't say it, and the purpose is lost at the extent of contradicton. people telling me i'm an awful human being because I have a particular belief regarding something like abortion. it's a legitimate belief and it has purpose in its reason. doesn't mean that person is scum. a woman wearing traditional, and more fundemental, clothing that is in respect of her religious affiliation, does that allow people to revile her as it could be interpreted as a symbol of the broken female, brainwashed to belief men are superior, it's for her modesty, etc whatever? I genuinely don't know where the line is between genuine trying to be a good person in respect to the culture you have, and being terrible for having ideas that are considered inherently discriminatory in other countries.

there isn't an answer. I just don't get it. it does the kentucky woman zero skin off her nose if she approves the same-sex marriage license, but has arranged so that she doesn't have to print her name on it. there's no change in effort, no fear that she thinks she'll be condemned to hell if found out, but because it's something that she can understand and respect in terms of society and legislation, and she prefers to have it done in a way that compromises her boliefs? i know i'm repeating and i'm rambling, but I cannot think of an ideal system that allows a person to respect and submit to legal power, but also have the right to avoid compromising her beliefs for the sake of having to sign a paper.


PC is a weird thing anyway because there's a difference between intended dehumanising slur, and there's using a word that you thought it just the word, and there's no maliciousness intended.

a woman wanting to copy a poem by a catholic priest so it can be discussed with people (500 copies she wanted for a study group. either that's for a large conference hall where someone talks and people leave and nothing changes, or it's a group of people who look at the poem and glean what truth they want. I doubt they'd picket and go "everyone goes to hell because you are pro-abortion".

were i to be in that group, and i have been in situations very similar, I would say "this is the intend. the condemnation shows the value that this man believes God has over us. This isn't a way to force people face consequences, or have a life is not fair moment. It is a way that God shows how much worth he gives us"
that's the message. game over, everyone goes home happy because you discussed a principle from a poem that had strong and condemning language, and you used that as a way to show the poet's zeal, even if it is condemning. something good came out of it

boom game over the world is better, those people have a more appropriate interpretation of anti-abortion themes in their church, and it ceases to become a way to hate others, but a way to treat people better becaus you think god thinks we're important to him so we should be loving to each other.


idk, maybe all 500 people were ready to don the white hoods and get the burning crosses ready, but I doubthtat.


scrolled up to see the article again so I didn't miss something, and honestly the intent is very christian and o.k.

the intention of the prayer is to ask for conversion… of the staff, employees, everybody who is part of this at Planned Parenthood. It means they will recognize life has dignity and that it is valuable and not a commodity to be bought and sold.”

they aren't going to riot or spit on people, they just want their appreciation of life (that whole worth of life to god thing) to just be good or whatever like honestly that poem, and that quote, and the intended use is far more compassionate to pro-abortion people, than pro-abortion people (can be) much more aggressive.


tl;dr
the intent of the poem is to say "god we don't want these people to go to hell by carrying out a procedure that is legally justified, and 'ignorantly' (meaning i'm not gonna judge an indonesian native who doesn't know the idea of "god and/or jesus' and then he's condemend to hell because of who he was"

does that make sense? it's rambly and long and confusing, but I think in situations like these, the worst shouldn't be assumed because someone wants to have a christian "god save these people it isn't an intentional sin it's just society" thing. like, oh man commandment not to kill, good luck in war or self-defence. take the principle, apply it to the modern era, and make sure to be a nice person.

it's really murky though and of course this is jsut the one incident, and others could have been more discriminating.

so it should be case by case rather than universal, but case by case makes it too subjective, and we're back at the start.

tl;dr her intended use of the poem was so that they could pray that these doctors don't go to hell. basically. not the best viewpoint, but it's not malicious and it is based on the mercy aspect of christianity rather than the fire ad brimstone

what an awful world.
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
Last edited by Baby Joel at Sep 14, 2015,
#33
Quote by Baby Joel
i got thrown out of an irish bar last week because i am not irish


this is the moment where people asking for tolerance are hesitant to tolerate others

melodrama and way to simple to actually be true about everything, but this is such a complication, and to be honest I think it's absurd.

I wish people stopped seeing other people as an enemy to their identity, when in reality it isn't.

I think she should go home, edit it so it reads

"poem by: catholic guy"

idk if you can ban that, especially if you say your intent is to compare and study social changes that have happened with the world, parallel to the catholic church, and then determine their stance on saying we don't believe in abortion, and this is why, but it's ok guys you can do what you want srsly


What the **** are you incessantly drivelling on about? Have you had some kind of breakdown? Drugs?
#34
Quote by Jehannum
What the **** are you incessantly drivelling on about? Have you had some kind of breakdown? Drugs?


That's just a typical day in the life of Babby....

OT though, who gives a shit. She was offered a reasonable alternative, refused to take it because she's too precious to deal with her problems like a human.
Come back if you want to
And remember who you are
‘Cause there's nothing here for you my dear
And everything must pass
#35
Quote by Jehannum
What the **** are you incessantly drivelling on about? Have you had some kind of breakdown? Drugs?

Yep. withdrawl from two of my regular pills. the replacements will be better, but the withdrawl does what it does.


now I usually try to hide my weird rants with a spoiler, while keeping the main points exposed.


and the counter-argument I have
]for the above poster whom I respect despite not having referenced enough to find out his normal forum nickname so I have to use his full forum name so whatever.

They offered an alternative and she refused. That's true. But she shouldn't have been offered the alternative. They used their personal objection to supercede company policy. Office Depot states that they won't let any of their products or stores be used for discriminatory purposes. Now it's not a 'problem' because either way the employees are gonna reject it (although I counter that the bit she wanted to copy, was not for discriminatory purposes).

In instances where company policy does not reject the 'problem', employees must be able to have an alternative, in which the 'problem' is ok with the company, and there is someone else who can do the 'problem'.


I could be 18 in America and work at a restaurant, but I am not allowed to serve alcoholic drinks. then I skip to the state over and suddenly it's ok.

It's a standard that doesn't make sense. So I don't understand why an underage employee couldn't serve alcoholic beverages for the sake of the law, and have an alternative (older waiter) to provide the service. And then someone's protestation and refusal to allow company and legal standards be damned for their own opinion.


example, and this is the crux of it:

Kentucky woman jailed for not granted same sex marriage licenses for political beliefs.
When given such an assignment in the future, she is allowed to 'ok' the legal issue, which is her legal obligation, and then she is able to have another on-site staff do the signature.

I can't understand the issue because it's intolerance over intolerance.


I'm religious and have conflicts between doctrine and social norm. Why am I punished for satisfying the social custom/law, without compromising my faith?

this is the issue summed up in one sentence
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
Last edited by Baby Joel at Sep 15, 2015,
#36
There's nothing I hate more than people who are "pro-life". They need to be aborted now.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#37
Quote by Rossenrot
Quote by WhatISThat
Brad Pitt

This.

The reference went right over my head.
What's the relation between Brad Pitt and this story?
Quote by Baby Joel
Yep. withdrawl from two of my regular pills. the replacements will be better, but the withdrawl does what it does.

Yeah. You've been tossin' word salads around left and right lately.
#38
It's interesting that several here are using the "it's a private business" excuse but if memory serves, that wasn't their position when the bakery didn't want to bake the cake for the homosexual wedding?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#39
Quote by Arby911
It's interesting that several here are using the "it's a private business" excuse but if memory serves, that wasn't their position when the bakery didn't want to bake the cake for the homosexual wedding?

My first impression also. But maybe it is cause on this case the company does not discrimate against all Christians, just this message, whereas discriminating against a group of people for their sexuality is discrimination.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#40
Quote by Arby911 at #33596659
It's interesting that several here are using the "it's a private business" excuse but if memory serves, that wasn't their position when the bakery didn't want to bake the cake for the homosexual wedding?

I'm pretty sure my attitude towards that was they should go to another bakery and quit being drama queens.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
Page 1 of 2